Friday, May 7, 2010

Dem prospects getting better

There haven't been a lot of good weeks on the Senate election front for Democrats so far in 2010, but they have received good news on their chances of picking up five different Republican held Senate seats this week:

-In Arizona there have been two polls now showing John McCain under 50% against Rodney Glassman. J.D. Hayworth continues to be competitive among Republican primary voters against McCain, and it appears a Hayworth-Glassman contest would be a total tossup.

-In Iowa Research 2000 showed Charles Grassley only up single digits against Roxanne Conlin, and although Rasmussen has Grassley up by 13 that's a far cry from January when they showed him leading her by 28 points.

-In Kentucky we found both Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo within the margin of error against Rand Paul, who all independent public polling continues to show with a double digit lead.

-In North Carolina, Rasmussen showed Elaine Marshall improving her standing against Richard Burr by ten points in just two and a half weeks and Cal Cunningham with a nine point movement in his. If we find anywhere near that much momentum for Marshall and Cunningham on our North Carolina poll this weekend then we'll find each of them almost tied with Burr for the first time.

-In Ohio Quinnipiac and Rasmussen now both show Lee Fisher ahead of Rob Portman, and in the case of Rasmussen that's a six point improvement for Fisher over the last month. Even if his primary victory wasn't exactly overwhelming, his standing's improved.

One thing we really don't know for sure yet is whether 2010 will be solely an anti-Democratic year, or more broadly an anti-incumbent year where there are some surprising Republican losses in addition to the expected Democratic ones. Although the GOP still has to be seen as favored in all of these races, the movement in a Democratic direction in each of them is an encouraging sign for the party.

18 comments:

Broadly, this is an anti-tax-and-spend year. What independents and Republicans want is opposite of what the left-wing Democratic base wants (more taxing and spending). Democrats will have to run as fiscal CONSERVATIVES to win tight elections in moderate states.

With the exception of Ohio, I could pick different polling data and say no, the Dems are actually moving toward a worse position for November. We all have a way of convincing ourselves that things are getting better all the time.

I think it'll be both. The anti-Democratic feeling will probably weigh more, but when unknowns like Glassman and Conlin are so close it's a sign that people aren't that enamored with the incumbents.

For Democrats to take these seats, however, it's not enough for people to be unhappy with McCain and Grassley. They have to see an indication that Glassman and Conlin will fight for them. The voters need to be convinced they won't vote Democratic party line and that they'll try to reign in spending.

Grassley does have five times the COH that Conlin does but she has raised money. He is particularly vulnerable on the botched healthcare negotiations in 2009. It's one thing to be against the bill, it's another to be ineffective on changing it.

Glassman has yet to file an FEC report. McCain has $26 million COH. After the primary the right wing should pull back their attacks on him. Will Glassman have the money to attack?

IN, for example: Coats has gone from 46% to 54% last month and still holds 51% against Ellsworth's 36%. (Ras)

59% support REPEAL of Obamacare and 48% STRONGLY support repeal. The opposition to repeal is anemic. Only 38% oppose Repeal and only 26% strongly oppose repeal. The opposition to repeal comes from astroturf special interests, like labor unions, not from likely voters. So the Democrat can't run on his support for Obamacare.

Also 61% of IN LV favor an immigration enforcement law like Arizona. Only 29% oppose. So the Democrat can't run on opposing immigration enforcement.

13% see Coats very favorably.13% see Ellsworth very unfavorably.

9% see Coats very unfavorably.9% see Ellsworth very favorably.

So the Democrat can't very well run on his personal favorability.

65% of Indiana feels they are overtaxed. So the Democrat can't run on more taxes. Certainly not more energy taxes; a plurality opposes this an energy bill being passed by this Congress.

And if Democrats want to run on the "party of no" canard, they will find that IN voters are just as likely to think that Republican opposition to Democrat policies IS A GOOD THING than to agree that such a label is actually a criticism.

As much as some races are tightening, especially those in which Republicans had held significant early leads, it is still difficult to see how Democrats can seal the deal... especially when independents are ideologically more in tune with Republicans than they have been in years... and national Democrats are so broadly unpopular and unfavorable.

Stuart Rothenberg spots trouble for Russ Feingold: "When former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) announced recently that he wouldn't enter the 2010 Senate race and challenge Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, many of us crossed the state off our list of competitive races. Maybe we were a bit premature. Two more Republicans - former state Commerce Secretary Dick Leinenkugel and businessman Ron Johnson - are joining the two GOPers already in the contest, businessman Terrence Wall and Dave Westlake, and the newly expanded field is just one reason for reconsidering my knee-jerk judgment. None of these four hopefuls possesses all of the qualities of the ideal challenger. But this cycle, Republicans may not need ideal challengers to win, even in the Badger State."

@Christian LibertyYou make several claims that are incorrect in your multiple posts :1) What independents and Republicans want is opposite of what the left-wing Democratic base wants (more taxing and spending).

Bullshit. Taxes are lower now than they have been in 50 years. What the Democratic Base wants is higher taxes on the very wealthy - those who make more than a quarter of a million, and what the base really wants are less corporate welfare and tax loopholes. The D Base doesn't want more 'spending' but we are all for targeted investments that will produce sustainable growth (i.e. - in education and clean energy technologies)

2) IN, for example: Coats has gone from 46% to 54% last month and still holds 51% against Ellsworth's 36%. (Ras) Rasmussen's polls are questionable at this point across the board.

3) and national Democrats are so broadly unpopular and unfavorable. I don't know where you get this info, but Gallup has people equally as likely to vote for a D in the fall as for an R. The Rs were ahead for a bit, but that gap has shrunk in the last few weeks.

NO MORE DEMOCRATS!!!!!! We need checks and balances in Washington!!! Letting the democrats run Washington has proved to be a huge mistake, we have watched the deficit skyrocket, we have watched the foreign policy issues take a downward spiral, we have watched the word terrorist go out the window, we have watched the democrats use the F word on TV and destroy any attempts at creating unity in this COuntry. Living in Arizona, we know McCain will win, his integrity, experience and knowledge is not only what this state needs, but what this Nation needs.

I imagine much of the tightening in NC is due to the recent primary in which the Democrats have been running ads, holding debates, robo calling and sending out mailings. While I've seen one or two things from Burr, he's largely building up his war chest for November while the Democrats spend (and now have a runoff).

There is no big surprise there. Given the way the NC Democrats have behaved, I'd be shocked if Burr lost. There is just too much fail all over the state for the Democrats who have been in charge forever and a day. Folks have had enough.

Not that Burr is the answer but he has the edge that there is no D next to his name.

Taxes are HIGHER than they should be and HIGHER than they were when America was most prosperous and peaceful and HIGHER than they were 100 years ago.

Democrats want to STEAL from honest Americans and redistribute their hard-earned money to political cronies. Republicans want to trust the American people with their own money. No contest who's ideology is morally superior. Honest Republican industry or Thieving Democrat Socialism.

I can't understand why anyone would see Coats favorably - he went 24 days past the filing date to submit his earnings ($822K as a LOBBYIST) and made a comment on video where he said "If you don't tell the good people of Indiana," he says, smiling, "Marsha and I decided there might be a better place where some of these older bones can absorb, so we have joined her parents in North Carolina and have a home down there which we use as a second home, but hope will be our first home and then I'll be able to register and vote for your two senators and congressmen and be a North Carolinian."

He doesn't even want to be in Indiana so why should we even consider electing a lobbyist as a Senator?

Oh, these cowardly and incoherent attacks by Anonymous posters on Coats for being a "lobbyist". LOL.

Lobbying is one of the few professions that was seen as so important that it was protected by the Constitution. The first amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The problem isn't the lobbyists, it's the government. Lobbyists are only advocating for their clients, like any lawyer does. It is the fault of the government for granting too many unconstitutional favors and buying votes. The politicians are the ones abusing the public's trust, not the lobbyists.

"Democrats want to STEAL from honest Americans and redistribute their hard-earned money to political cronies. Republicans want to trust the American people with their own money. No contest who's ideology is morally superior."

"Taxes are HIGHER than they should be and HIGHER than they were when America was most prosperous and peaceful and HIGHER than they were 100 years ago."

The first "HIGHER" is an opinion. The next two are blatantly incorrect.

Assuming you mean the 1950s, when the US economy dominated the world, and Americans had by far the highest standard of living in the world, your statement is demonstrably untrue. 91% top marginal tax rate. Anyone here paying a 91% tax rate on any portion of his or her income?